## Facts

- Mr. Devonald posed as a young woman online to contact his daughter’s former boyfriend.
- His objective was to expose the ex-boyfriend’s alleged improper behaviour.
- Devonald induced the victim to perform humiliating acts via webcam, which he recorded.
- The prosecution focused on whether the messages sent were “indecent, obscene, or threatening” under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.
- Dispute centered on whether the jury should consider the recipient’s reaction to the message.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 requires proof of the sender’s specific intent to cause annoyance, inconvenience or unnecessary worry.
2. Whether the assessment of “indecent, obscene, or threatening” communication hinges on the sender’s conduct and intent, or the recipient’s subjective reaction.
3. Whether evidence of the victim’s emotional response is necessary for conviction under Section 127(1)(a).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal overturned the original conviction.
- It held that the proper test is an objective consideration of the message’s content and the sender’s intent, not the recipient’s subjective feelings.
- The court clarified a message may be threatening, indecent or obscene regardless of the victim’s personal reaction.
- The sender’s intention is central for offences under Section 127(1)(a).
- The court rejected the argument that the victim’s personal interpretation or response was decisive.

## Legal Principles

- Proof of the sender’s intent to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or unnecessary worry is required for conviction under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.
- The jury must objectively assess the nature of the message and the purpose behind its sending.
- Offending communications are evaluated by reference to their objective features and the sender’s state of mind, rather than the recipient’s subjective response.
- Online deception and use of a false identity do not shield a defendant from liability if the intent to cause harm is established.

## Conclusion

The decision in R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 establishes that, under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003, liability depends on the sender’s intent and the objective content of electronic messages, not the recipient’s individual feelings. This ruling provides clear guidance for the prosecution of online harassment and deception cases.
